John George Pappas

The appellant appealed the Town of Grimsby's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment intended to facilitate a 44-unit residential infill development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that modified the by-law to address the appellant's concerns regarding privacy and overlook by restricting second-floor windows and projections on specific lots.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the modified by-law is consistent with provincial policies, conforms to applicable official plans, and represents good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

This was the third Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the City of Toronto's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 525 and related Zoning By-law Amendments for the King-Parliament area.

The Tribunal addressed several administrative matters, including the splitting, consolidation, and withdrawal of various site-specific appeals.

On consent of all parties, the Tribunal adjourned the scheduled merit hearing sine die to facilitate ongoing settlement discussions.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision to permit a 324-unit residential development.

The applicant and the City reached a settlement, which was opposed by an abutting property owner who argued the proposed lot sizes and setbacks would result in unacceptable adverse impacts on his estate residential property.

The Tribunal found the proposed development was compatible with the broader neighbourhood, provided appropriate transition, and conformed with the applicable official plan policies.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the proposed instruments were approved in principle.

Jane Teston Holdings Inc. appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit an 11-storey (later revised to 8-storey) residential building.

The City opposed the development, arguing it was an overdevelopment and would cause unacceptable traffic impacts on local roads.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert evidence, finding that the traffic modelling was appropriate and that the development represented a gentle form of intensification that conformed with the Growth Plan, York Region Official Plan, and City of Vaughan Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part, approving the amendments in principle.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 7818 Dufferin Inc. against the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Regional Municipality of York on consent.

The parties submitted a finalized Procedural Order and Issues List, which the Tribunal approved.

A 9-day hearing on the merits was scheduled to commence on January 22, 2024.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body that denied its applications for severance and minor variances to build two single-family homes.

The moving party argued the member applied the wrong statutory test and misapprehended expert evidence regarding street and lot frontages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the member applied the correct legal test, the evidentiary issue did not raise an extricable question of law, and the issues were not of sufficient general or public importance to warrant granting leave.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's decision regarding minor variances to facilitate the construction of two warehouse buildings.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on amended variances for a reduced minimum yard abutting a residential use and a reduced parking requirement.

The Tribunal found that the amended application required no further notice as it requested less relief.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning and noise evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, authorizing the variances subject to conditions, finding they met the four tests under the Planning Act and represented good land use planning.

The Ontario Land Tribunal conducted a Case Management Conference regarding numerous appeals of the City of Vaughan's Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 001-2021 and Transitional By-law No. 039-2022.

The Tribunal granted party status to several entities, consolidated the proceedings for both by-laws, and set deadlines for filing comments.

Additionally, the Tribunal approved a settlement regarding the property at 4603 and 4611 Highway 7, amending the zoning by-law to correct site-specific development standards based on uncontested planning evidence.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 65 and Zoning By-law No. 16-265 regarding Transit Oriented Corridor Zones.

The parties reached a settlement to modify the zoning by-law for specific properties to allow minor additions and alterations to existing commercial buildings, and the appellant withdrew its appeal of the official plan amendment.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the settlement is consistent with provincial policies, conforms to the official plan, and represents good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part to implement the settlement.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal that dismissed his appeal of a zoning by-law without a hearing.

The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal on the basis that it did not disclose any apparent land use planning ground and failed to explain how the by-law was inconsistent with provincial policy or the official plan.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal provided sufficient reasons and made no error of law in applying the test for dismissing an appeal without a hearing under the Planning Act.

The moving party had failed to provide responding affidavit evidence or expert planning opinions to support his appeal grounds before the Tribunal.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The Integrity Commissioner applied for a determination that a municipal councillor contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by failing to declare a pecuniary interest and voting on a matter involving her own remuneration suspension.

The councillor admitted the contravention but argued for a lesser penalty, citing officially induced error and bias.

The court rejected these defences, finding the councillor's actions were not mere inadvertence given her experience and prior sanctions.

The court declared the councillor's seat vacant and issued a reprimand.

The applicant appealed the City's refusal of consent to sever and minor variance applications to facilitate the demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of two new single detached dwellings.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement based on a revised proposal with reduced massing, re-oriented lot frontages, and fewer variances.

Relying on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal met the statutory tests under the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the Growth Plan.

The appeals were allowed, provisional consent was granted, and the revised variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The Town of Grimsby brought a motion for discovery seeking extensive financial and development documentation from the applicant, Rosebay Construction Inc., in a dispute over the valuation of land for a cash-in-lieu of parkland payment.

The Town sought the documents to conduct a new appraisal using a Residual Land Value methodology, having previously relied on a Direct Comparison Approach.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that ordering production at this late stage would be prejudicial to the applicant, cause significant delay, and fail to offer a fair, just, and expeditious resolution of the proceeding.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding 39 appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 525 and associated zoning by-law amendments, which adopted a new secondary plan for the King-Parliament area.

The Tribunal addressed administrative matters including the withdrawal of certain appeals, the substitution of new property owners for existing appeals, and the splitting of an appeal.

The Tribunal also granted party status to two landowners.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for May 19, 2022, to establish a Procedural Order and issues list, and to allow parties time for mediation and settlement discussions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for an 11-storey residential building.

The Tribunal granted party status to the region on consent and recognized 51 participants.

The Tribunal approved the finalized Procedural Order and scheduled a 10-day video hearing for the merits of the appeals.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's zoning by-law appeal without a hearing under section 34(25) of the Planning Act, and to be added as a party.

The Tribunal granted the applicant party status on consent.

On the motion to dismiss, the Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide an affidavit or any evidence to substantiate the reasons for the appeal, relying instead on unsworn material and the prospect of a future Case Management Conference.

The Tribunal concluded that the notice of appeal did not disclose any apparent land use planning ground upon which the appeal could be allowed, and dismissed the appeal without a hearing.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a mid-rise residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that included a 0.20 hectare parkland dedication, the inclusion of commercial space, and the use of holding provisions to address servicing and access.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal conforms to provincial and municipal policies, represents good planning, and is in the public interest.

The appeals were allowed in part and the instruments were approved in principle.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings for an appeal by Dufcen Construction Inc. regarding the City of Vaughan's failure to adopt a requested official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the list of parties, and the consolidated issues list.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from an order of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $18,000 to each of the responding municipalities.